Rationale and design of the beta-blocker in heart failure with normal left ventricular ejection fraction (beta-PRESERVE) study

Beta-blocker therapy in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (B-HFpEF): A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

While beta-blockers are considered the cornerstone of treatment for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, the same may not apply to patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). To date, the benefit of beta-blockers remains uncertain, and there is no current consensus on their effectiveness. This study sought to evaluate the efficacy of beta-blockers on mortality and rehospitalization among patients with HFpEF.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized or observational cohort studies examined the efficacy of beta-blocker therapy in comparison with placebo, control, or standard medical care in patients with HFpEF, defined as left ventricular ejection fraction ≥50 %. The main endpoints were mortality (i.e., all-cause and cardiovascular), rehospitalization (i.e., all-cause and for heart failure) and a composite of the two.

RESULTS

Out of the 13,189 records initially identified, 16 full-text records met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed recruiting a total of 27,188 patients. The mean age range was 62-84 years old, predominantly female, with HFpEF in which 63.4 % of patients received a beta-blocker and 36.6 % did not. The pooled analysis of included cohort studies, of variable follow-up durations, showed a significant reduction in all-cause mortality by 19 % (odds ratio (OR) 0.81; 95 % confidence interval (CI): 0.65-0.99, p = 0.044) whereas rehospitalization for heart failure (OR 1.13; 95 % CI: 0.91-1.41, p = 0.27) or its composite with all-cause mortality (OR 1.01; 95 % CI: 0.78-1.32, p = 0.92) were similar between the beta-blocker and control groups.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis showed that beta-blocker therapy has the potential to reduce all-cause mortality in patients with HFpEF based on observational studies. Nevertheless, it did not affect rehospitalization for heart failure or its composite with all-cause mortality. Large scale randomized trials are needed to clarify this uncertainty.

Beta-blockers and inhibitors of the renin-angiotensin aldosterone system for chronic heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

BACKGROUND

Beta-blockers and inhibitors of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system improve survival and reduce morbidity in people with heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF); a review of the evidence is required to determine whether these treatments are beneficial for people with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of beta-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists in people with HFpEF.

SEARCH METHODS

We updated searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and one clinical trial register on 14 May 2020 to identify eligible studies, with no language or date restrictions. We checked references from trial reports and review articles for additional studies.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials with a parallel group design, enrolling adults with HFpEF, defined by LVEF greater than 40%.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 41 randomised controlled trials (231 reports), totalling 23,492 participants across all comparisons. The risk of bias was frequently unclear and only five studies had a low risk of bias in all domains. Beta-blockers (BBs) We included 10 studies (3087 participants) investigating BBs. Five studies used a placebo comparator and in five the comparator was usual care. The mean age of participants ranged from 30 years to 81 years. A possible reduction in cardiovascular mortality was observed (risk ratio (RR) 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62 to 0.99; number needed to treat for an additional benefit (NNTB) 25; 1046 participants; three studies), however, the certainty of evidence was low. There may be little to no effect on all-cause mortality (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.00; 1105 participants; four studies; low-certainty evidence). The effects on heart failure hospitalisation, hyperkalaemia, and quality of life remain uncertain. Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) We included 13 studies (4459 participants) investigating MRA. Eight studies used a placebo comparator and in five the comparator was usual care. The mean age of participants ranged from 54.5 to 80 years. Pooled analysis indicated that MRA treatment probably reduces heart failure hospitalisation (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.98; NNTB = 41; 3714 participants; three studies; moderate-certainty evidence). However, MRA treatment probably has little or no effect on all-cause mortality (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.06; 4207 participants; five studies; moderate-certainty evidence) and cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.11; 4070 participants; three studies; moderate-certainty evidence). MRA treatment may have little or no effect on quality of life measures (mean difference (MD) 0.84, 95% CI -2.30 to 3.98; 511 participants; three studies; low-certainty evidence). MRA treatment was associated with a higher risk of hyperkalaemia (RR 2.11, 95% CI 1.77 to 2.51; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) = 11; 4291 participants; six studies; high-certainty evidence). Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) We included eight studies (2061 participants) investigating ACEIs. Three studies used a placebo comparator and in five the comparator was usual care. The mean age of participants ranged from 70 to 82 years. Pooled analyses with moderate-certainty evidence suggest that ACEI treatment likely has little or no effect on cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.42; 945 participants; two studies), all-cause mortality (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.45; 1187 participants; five studies) and heart failure hospitalisation (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.15; 1019 participants; three studies), and may result in little or no effect on the quality of life (MD -0.09, 95% CI -3.66 to 3.48; 154 participants; two studies; low-certainty evidence). The effects on hyperkalaemia remain uncertain. Angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) Eight studies (8755 participants) investigating ARBs were included. Five studies used a placebo comparator and in three the comparator was usual care. The mean age of participants ranged from 61 to 75 years. Pooled analyses with high certainty of evidence suggest that ARB treatment has little or no effect on cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.02, 95% 0.90 to 1.14; 7254 participants; three studies), all-cause mortality (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.11; 7964 participants; four studies), heart failure hospitalisation (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.02; 7254 participants; three studies), and quality of life (MD 0.41, 95% CI -0.86 to 1.67; 3117 participants; three studies). ARB was associated with a higher risk of hyperkalaemia (RR 1.88, 95% CI 1.07 to 3.33; 7148 participants; two studies; high-certainty evidence). Angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors (ARNIs) Three studies (7702 participants) investigating ARNIs were included. Two studies used ARBs as the comparator and one used standardised medical therapy, based on participants' established treatments at enrolment. The mean age of participants ranged from 71 to 73 years. Results suggest that ARNIs may have little or no effect on cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.15; 4796 participants; one study; moderate-certainty evidence), all-cause mortality (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.11; 7663 participants; three studies; high-certainty evidence), or quality of life (high-certainty evidence). However, ARNI treatment may result in a slight reduction in heart failure hospitalisation, compared to usual care (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.00; 7362 participants; two studies; moderate-certainty evidence). ARNI treatment was associated with a reduced risk of hyperkalaemia compared with valsartan (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.01; 5054 participants; two studies; moderate-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is evidence that MRA and ARNI treatment in HFpEF probably reduces heart failure hospitalisation but probably has little or no effect on cardiovascular mortality and quality of life. BB treatment may reduce the risk of cardiovascular mortality, however, further trials are needed. The current evidence for BBs, ACEIs, and ARBs is limited and does not support their use in HFpEF in the absence of an alternative indication. Although MRAs and ARNIs are probably effective at reducing the risk of heart failure hospitalisation, the treatment effect sizes are modest. There is a need for improved approaches to patient stratification to identify the subgroup of patients who are most likely to benefit from MRAs and ARNIs, as well as for an improved understanding of disease biology, and for new therapeutic approaches.

Association Between β-Blockers and Outcomes in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction: Current Insights From the SwedeHF Registry

BACKGROUND

β-Blockers have an uncertain effect in heart failure with a preserved ejection fraction of 50% or higher (heart failure with preserved ejection fraction [HFpEF]).

METHODS AND RESULTS

We included patients with HFpEF from the Swedish Heart Failure Registry (SwedeHF) enrolled from 2011 through 2018. In a 2:1 propensity-score matched analysis (β-blocker use vs nonuse), we assessed the primary outcome first HF hospitalization, the coprimary outcome cardiovascular (CV) death, and the secondary outcomes of all-cause hospitalization and all-cause death. We performed intention-to-treat and a per-protocol consistency analyses. There were a total of 14,434 patients (median age 79 years, IQR 71-85 years, 51% women); 80% were treated with a β-blocker at baseline. Treated patients were younger and had higher rates of atrial fibrillation and coronary artery disease, and higher N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide levels. In the 4412:2206 patient matched cohort, at 5 years, 42% (95% CI 40%-44%) vs 44% (95% CI 41%-47%) had a HF admission and 38% (IQR 36%-40%) vs 40% (IQR 36%-42%) died from CV causes. In the intention-to-treat analysis, β-blocker use was not associated with HF admissions (hazard ratio 0.95 [95% CI 0.87-1.05, P = .31]) or CV death (hazard ratio 0.94 [95% CI 0.85-1.03, P = .19]). In the subgroup analyses, men seemed to have a more favorable association between β-blockers and outcomes than did women. There were no associations between β-blocker use and secondary outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with HFpEF, β-blocker use is common but not associated with changes in HF hospitalization or cardiovascular mortality. In the absence of a strong rational and randomized control trials the case for β-blockers in HFpEF remains inconclusive.

BULLET POINTS

● The effect of β-blockers with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction of 50% or greater is uncertain.● In a propensity score-matched heart failure with preserved ejection fraction analysis in the SwedeHF registry, β-blockers were not associated with a change in risk for heart failure admissions or cardiovascular deaths.

LAY SUMMARY

The optimal treatment for heart failure with a preserved pump function remains unknown. Despite the lack of scientific studies, β-blockers are very commonly used. When matching patients with a similar risk profile in a large heart failure registry, the use of β-blockers for the treatment of heart failure with a preserved pump function was not associated with any changes in heart failure hospital admissions or cardiovascular death.

Diagnosis and treatment of heart failure with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction

Nearly six million people in United States have heart failure. Fifty percent of these people have normal left ventricular (LV) systolic heart function but abnormal diastolic function due to increased LV myocardial stiffness. Most commonly, these patients are elderly women with hypertension, ischemic heart disease, atrial fibrillation, obesity, diabetes mellitus, renal disease, or obstructive lung disease. The annual mortality rate of these patients is 8%-12% per year. The diagnosis is based on the history, physical examination, laboratory data, echocardiography, and, when necessary, by cardiac catheterization. Patients with obesity, hypertension, atrial fibrillation, and volume overload require weight reduction, an exercise program, aggressive control of blood pressure and heart rate, and diuretics. Miniature devices inserted into patients for pulmonary artery pressure monitoring provide early warning of increased pulmonary pressure and congestion. If significant coronary heart disease is present, coronary revascularization should be considered.

Beta-blockers and inhibitors of the renin-angiotensin aldosterone system for chronic heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

BACKGROUND

Beta-blockers and inhibitors of the renin-angiotensin aldosterone system improve survival and reduce morbidity in people with heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction. There is uncertainty whether these treatments are beneficial for people with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and a comprehensive review of the evidence is required.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of beta-blockers, angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists in people with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and two clinical trial registries on 25 July 2017 to identify eligible studies. Reference lists from primary studies and review articles were checked for additional studies. There were no language or date restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials with a parallel group design enrolling adult participants with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, defined by a left ventricular ejection fraction of greater than 40 percent.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion and extracted data. The outcomes assessed included cardiovascular mortality, heart failure hospitalisation, hyperkalaemia, all-cause mortality and quality of life. Risk ratios (RR) and, where possible, hazard ratios (HR) were calculated for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous data, mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) were calculated. We contacted trialists where neccessary to obtain missing data.

MAIN RESULTS

37 randomised controlled trials (207 reports) were included across all comparisons with a total of 18,311 participants.Ten studies (3087 participants) investigating beta-blockers (BB) were included. A pooled analysis indicated a reduction in cardiovascular mortality (15% of participants in the intervention arm versus 19% in the control arm; RR 0.78; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62 to 0.99; number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB) 25; 1046 participants; 3 studies). However, the quality of evidence was low and no effect on cardiovascular mortality was observed when the analysis was limited to studies with a low risk of bias (RR 0.81; 95% CI 0.50 to 1.29; 643 participants; 1 study). There was no effect on all-cause mortality, heart failure hospitalisation or quality of life measures, however there is uncertainty about these effects given the limited evidence available.12 studies (4408 participants) investigating mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRA) were included with the quality of evidence assessed as moderate. MRA treatment reduced heart failure hospitalisation (11% of participants in the intervention arm versus 14% in the control arm; RR 0.82; 95% CI 0.69 to 0.98; NNTB 41; 3714 participants; 3 studies; moderate-quality evidence) however, little or no effect on all-cause and cardiovascular mortality and quality of life measures was observed. MRA treatment was associated with a greater risk of hyperkalaemia (16% of participants in the intervention group versus 8% in the control group; RR 2.11; 95% CI 1.77 to 2.51; 4291 participants; 6 studies; high-quality evidence).Eight studies (2061 participants) investigating angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) were included with the overall quality of evidence assessed as moderate. The evidence suggested that ACEI treatment likely has little or no effect on cardiovascular mortality, all-cause mortality, heart failure hospitalisation, or quality of life. Data for the effect of ACEI on hyperkalaemia were only available from one of the included studies.Eight studies (8755 participants) investigating angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) were included with the overall quality of evidence assessed as high. The evidence suggested that treatment with ARB has little or no effect on cardiovascular mortality, all-cause mortality, heart failure hospitalisation, or quality of life. ARB was associated with an increased risk of hyperkalaemia (0.9% of participants in the intervention group versus 0.5% in the control group; RR 1.88; 95% CI 1.07 to 3.33; 7148 participants; 2 studies; high-quality evidence).We identified a single ongoing placebo-controlled study investigating the effect of angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors (ARNI) in people with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is evidence that MRA treatment reduces heart failure hospitalisation in heart failure with preserverd ejection fraction, however the effects on mortality related outcomes and quality of life remain unclear. The available evidence for beta-blockers, ACEI, ARB and ARNI is limited and it remains uncertain whether these treatments have a role in the treatment of HFpEF in the absence of an alternative indication for their use. This comprehensive review highlights a persistent gap in the evidence that is currently being addressed through several large ongoing clinical trials.

Current Management and Future Directions of Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction: a Contemporary Review

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), a complex and debilitating syndrome, is commonly seen in elderly populations. Exacerbation of HFpEF is among the most common reasons for hospital admission in the USA. The high rate of morbidity and mortality from this condition underscores the fact that HFpEF is heterogeneous, complex, and poorly characterized. Randomized, controlled trials have been very successful at identifying treatments for HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), but effective treatment options for HFpEF are lacking. Here, we discuss (1) the pathophysiology of HFpEF, (2) a standardized diagnostic and therapeutic approach, (3) a comparison of the management of recent guidelines, and (4) challenges and future directions for HFpEF management. The authors believe that it is important to identify new subtypes of HFpEF to better classify genotypes and phenotypes of HFpEF and to develop novel targeted therapies. It is our hypothesis that big data analytics will shine new light on unique HFpEF phenotypes that better respond to treatment modalities.

The Real Role of β-Blockers in Daily Cardiovascular Therapy

The role of β-adrenoceptor antagonists (β-blockers) in cardiovascular therapy has been subject to diverse trends and changes over the decades. With the advent of a wide variety of excellent drugs for the treatment of antihypertension, β-blockers have been relegated from the first-line treatment of essential hypertension. However, they remain the drugs of first choice in recommendations from the respective medical societies for heart failure, coronary artery disease, and atrial fibrillation as well as in hypertension complicated with heart failure, angina pectoris, or prior myocardial infarction. When indicated, cardioselective β-blockers should be prescribed in patients with diabetes mellitus or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. We review the available evidence for the use of β-blockers in clinical conditions in which recommendations can be made for everyday practice.

Prognosis of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction treated with β-blockers: A propensity matched study in the community

BACKGROUND

The effect of treatment with β-blockers on the prognosis of patients newly diagnosed with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the relationship of commencing treatment with the β-blockers bisoprolol or carvedilol (CT-βB) with the prognosis of newly diagnosed HFpEF.

METHODS

Prospective study over 10years on 2704 patients with HFpEF. Main outcomes were mortality (all-cause and cardiovascular), hospitalizations for HF worsening, and visits. The independent relationship between CT-βB and the prognosis, stratifying patients for cardiovascular co-morbidity after propensity score-matching (985 patients CT-βB vs. another 985 patients non-CT-βB), was analyzed.

RESULTS

During a median follow-up of 1877.4days (interquartile range, 1-3651.2) 1600 died (81.2%), and 1702 were hospitalized (86.4%). CT-βB was associated with a lower risk of mortality (all-cause: HR [CI 95%] 0.78 [0.71 to 0.85], and cardiovascular: 0.75 [0.69 to 0.82]), a lower hospitalization rate (per 100 persons-year), 15.8 vs. 19.2, and a lower 30-day readmission rate (per 100 persons-year), 4.0 vs. 5.8, (P<0.001 in all cases), even after adjustment for the propensity to take β-blockers or other medications, comorbidities, and other potential confounders. These effects of CT-βB were independent of gender, and were observed in both patients taking high dose βB (over the median dose) and lower dose βB (under or equal to the median dose).

CONCLUSIONS

In this propensity matched study, commencing treatment with bisoprolol or carvedilol, both at high and at lower doses, is associated with an improved prognosis of patients newly diagnosed with HFpEF.

Myocardial reverse remodeling: how far can we rewind?

Heart failure (HF) is a systemic disease that can be divided into HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). HFpEF accounts for over 50% of all HF patients and is typically associated with high prevalence of several comorbidities, including hypertension, diabetes mellitus, pulmonary hypertension, obesity, and atrial fibrillation. Myocardial remodeling occurs both in HFrEF and HFpEF and it involves changes in cardiac structure, myocardial composition, and myocyte deformation and multiple biochemical and molecular alterations that impact heart function and its reserve capacity. Understanding the features of myocardial remodeling has become a major objective for limiting or reversing its progression, the latter known as reverse remodeling (RR). Research on HFrEF RR process is broader and has delivered effective therapeutic strategies, which have been employed for some decades. However, the RR process in HFpEF is less clear partly due to the lack of information on HFpEF pathophysiology and to the long list of failed standard HF therapeutics strategies in these patient's outcomes. Nevertheless, new proteins, protein-protein interactions, and signaling pathways are being explored as potential new targets for HFpEF remodeling and RR. Here, we review recent translational and clinical research in HFpEF myocardial remodeling to provide an overview on the most important features of RR, comparing HFpEF with HFrEF conditions.

Is heart rate a risk marker in patients with chronic heart failure and concomitant atrial fibrillation? Results from the MAGGIC meta-analysis

AIM

To investigate the relationship between heart rate and survival in patients with heart failure (HF) and coexisting atrial fibrillation (AF).

METHODS AND RESULTS

Patients with AF included in the Meta-analysis Global Group in Chronic Heart Failure (MAGGIC) meta-analysis were the main focus of this analysis (3259 patients from 17 studies). The outcome was all-cause mortality at 3 years. Heart rate was analysed as a categorical (tertiles; T1 ≤77 b.p.m., T2 78-98 b.p.m., T3 ≥98 b.p.m.) and continuous variable. Cox proportional hazard models were used to compare the risk of all-cause death between tertiles of baseline heart rate. Patients in the highest tertile were more often female, less likely to have an ischaemic aetiology or diabetes, had a lower ejection fraction but higher blood pressure and New York Heart Association (NYHA) class. Higher heart rate was associated with higher mortality in patients with sinus rhythm (SR) but not in those in AF. In patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HF-REF) and AF, death rates per 100 patient years were lowest in the highest heart rate tertile (T1 18.9 vs. T3 15.9) but this difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.10). In patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction (HF-PEF), death rates per 100 patient years were highest in the highest heart rate tertile (T1 14.6 vs. T3 16.0, P = 0.014). However, after adjustment for other important prognostic variables, higher heart rate was no longer associated with higher mortality in HF-PEF (or HF-REF).

CONCLUSIONS

In this meta-analysis of patients with HF, heart rate does not have the same prognostic significance in patients in AF as it does in those in SR, irrespective of ejection fraction or treatment with beta-blocker.

Risk factors for rehospitalization in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction compared with reduced ejection fraction

Although there have been several studies regarding heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), investigations of the risk factors for readmission of Japanese patients with HFpEF remain scarce. Therefore, our goal was to identify the risk factors for readmission of Japanese patients with heart failure (HF), particularly those with HFpEF. We analyzed 310 patients who were hospitalized for the first time with HF. Preserved EF was defined EF ≥50 %, and reduced EF (rEF) was EF <50 %. The study endpoint was readmission for HF after discharge. Medical history, vital signs, electrocardiograms, chest radiographs, blood tests and echocardiograms were compared between patients with HFpEF and with HFrEF. Among the 142 patients who had HFpEF, 43 reached the endpoint within 1 year. Multivariate analysis revealed depression (HR: 7.185), high brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) levels at discharge (HR: 1.003), and dilated inferior vena cava (HR: 1.100) as independent risk factors for readmission. In contrast, 39 of the 168 patients with HFrEF reached the endpoint. Risk factors for readmission of HFrEF patients were low sodium (HR: 0.856), high blood urea nitrogen (HR: 1.045), high BNP levels at discharge (HR: 1.003) and absence of beta-blocker prescription (HR: 0.395). In conclusion, our study suggests that the predictors of HF readmission differ between HFpEF and HFrEF patients.

Effects of beta-blockers on heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Effects of beta-blockers on the prognosis of the heart failure patients with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) remain controversial. The aim of this meta-analysis was to determine the impact of beta-blockers on mortality and hospitalization in the patients with HFpEF.

METHODS

A search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library databases from 2005 to June 2013 was conducted. Clinical studies reporting outcomes of mortality and/or hospitalization for patients with HFpEF (EF ≥ 40%), being assigned to beta-blockers treatment and non-beta-blockers control group were included.

RESULTS

A total of 12 clinical studies (2 randomized controlled trials and 10 observational studies) involving 21,206 HFpEF patients were included for this meta-analysis. The pooled analysis demonstrated that beta-blocker exposure was associated with a 9% reduction in relative risk for all-cause mortality in patients with HFpEF (95% CI: 0.87 - 0.95; P < 0.001). Whereas, the all-cause hospitalization, HF hospitalization and composite outcomes (mortality and hospitalization) were not affected by this treatment (P=0.26, P=0.97, and P=0.88 respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The beta-blockers treatment for the patients with HFpEF was associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality, but not with a lower risk of hospitalization. These finding were mainly obtained from observational studies, and further investigations are needed to make an assertion.

Current treatment of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: should we add life to the remaining years or add years to the remaining life?

According to the ejection fraction, patients with heart failure may be divided into two different groups: heart failure with preserved or reduced ejection fraction. In recent years, accumulating studies showed that increased mortality and morbidity rates of these two groups are nearly equal. More importantly, despite decline in mortality after treatment in regard to current guideline in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, there are still no trials resulting in improved outcome in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction so far. Thus, novel pathophysiological mechanisms are under development, and other new viewpoints, such as multiple comorbidities resulting in increased non-cardiac deaths in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction, were presented recently. In this review, we will focus on the tested as well as the promising therapeutic options that are currently studied in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, along with a brief discussion of pathophysiological mechanisms and diagnostic options that are helpful to increase our understanding of novel therapeutic strategies.

Chronic heart failure: current evidence, challenges to therapy, and future directions

Heart failure (HF) is a complex syndrome characterized by the inability of the heart to maintain a normal cardiac output without elevated intracardiac filling pressures, resulting in signs of pulmonary and peripheral edema and symptoms of dyspnea and fatigue. Central to the management of HF is a multifaceted pharmacological intervention to abate the harmful counter-regulatory effects of neurohormonal activation and avid salt and water retention. Whereas up to 40 years ago HF was managed with diuretics and leaf of digitalis, the cornerstones of therapy for HF patients with systolic dysfunction now include ACE inhibitors or angiotensin II type 1 receptor antagonists (angiotensin receptor blockers), β-adrenoceptor antagonists (β-blockers), and aldosterone antagonists, which have significantly improved survival. However, with the increasing number of beneficial therapies, there are challenges to implementing all of them. Specific cardiomyopathies also merit specific considerations with respect to treatment, and - unfortunately - there is no therapy for HF with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction that has been shown to improve survival. Although mortality has improved in HF, the biggest challenge to treatment lies in addressing the morbidity of this disease, which is now the most common reason for hospital admission in our aged population. As such, there are many therapies that may serve to improve the quality of life of HF patients. Future HF treatment regimens may include direct cellular therapy via hormone and cytokine signaling or cardiac regeneration through growth factors or cell therapy.

Medical therapy for chronic heart failure

Understanding of contemporary pharmacological therapy for chronic heart failure continues to evolve. In this Review, we discuss how findings from clinical trials have caused the roles of old therapies to be expanded and past treatment algorithms to be challenged. Several trials investigating preserved ejection fraction as a measure of heart failure had disappointing results, although important studies are in progress. Many novel therapeutic approaches for heart failure have emerged and are discussed in this review. The pharmacological treatments for heart failure continue to change, with many exciting possibilities for the future.

Treatment of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: have we been pursuing the wrong paradigm?

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HF-PEF) is the clinical syndrome of heart failure associated with normal or near-normal systolic function. Because inhibition of the adrenergic and renin-angiotensin-aldosterone systems has been so effective in the treatment of systolic heart failure, these same therapies have been the subject of recent clinical trials of HF-PEF. In this review, we examine the current evidence about treatment of HF-PEF, with particular emphasis on reviewing the literature for large-scale randomized clinical studies. The lack of significant benefit with neurohormonal antagonism in HF-PEF suggests that this condition might not involve neurohormonal activation as a critical pathophysiologic mechanism. Perhaps heart failure as we traditionally think of it is the wrong paradigm to pursue as we try to understand this condition of volume overload known as HF-PEF.